Whether The Son is equal to the Father in Greatness?

aeg4971

Well-known member
weeee

4. Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

14. And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you
18. No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

30. I and my Father are one.



These are the only scriptures the Latin doctors needed to demonstrate God is one absolute albeit on account of Relation really belongs to God; a plurality in the Supposita of which it is spoken. Hence we must need admit a distinction namely in Godhead. God is His very own Godhead. So to Phontine Yachristian, anti Trinitarians, and Trinitarians alike, The Latin doctor communis refutes modern humanism in adequately (insofar as corporal things represent divine objects), verities of the divine.

""Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in greatness. For He Himself said ( Jn.14:28): The Father is greater than I" ; and the Apostle says ( 1 Cor 15:28): " The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that puts all things under Him.

Objection 2: Further, paternity is part of the Father's dignity. But paternity does not belong to the Son. Therefore the Son does not possess all the Father's dignity; and so He is not equal in greatness to the Father.

Objection 3: Further, wherever there exist a whole and a part, many parts are more than one only, or than fewer parts; as three men are more than two , or than one. But in God a universal whole exists, and a part; for under relation or notion, several notions are included. Therefore, since in the Father there are three notions, while in the Son there are only two, the Son is evidently not equal to the Father.

On the contrary, It is said (Phil. 2:6) : " He thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in greatness . For the greatness of God is nothing but the perfection of His nature. Now it belongs to the very nature of paternity and filiation that the Son by generation should attain to the possession of the perfection of the Nature which is in the Father, in the same way as it is in the Father Himself. But since in men generation is a certain kind of transmutation of one proceeding from potentiality to act, it follows that a man is not equal at first to the father who begets him, but attains to equality by due growth, unless owing to a defect in the principle of generation it should happen otherwise.

From what precedes, it is evident that in God there exist real true paternity and filiation. Nor can we say that the power of generation in the Father was defective, nor that the Son of God arrived at perfection in a successive manner and by change. Therefore we must say that the Son was eternally equal to the Father in greatness. Hence, Hilary says ( De Synod. Van 27):" Remove bodily weakness, remove the beginning of conception, remove pain and all human shortcomings, then every son, by reason of his natural nativity, is the father's equal, because he has a like nature.

Reply 1: These words are to be understood of Christ human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius ," Equal to the Father in His Godhead ; less than the Father in humanity' ; and by Hilary ( De Trin.ix), By the fact of. giving , the Father is greater,but He is not less to Whom the same being is given". and (De Synod); "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety,, that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas' creatures are subject by their created weakness.

Reply 2: Equality is measured in greatness. In God greatness signifies the perfection of nature, and it belongs to the Essence; Thus equality and likeness in God have reference to the essence; nor can there be inequality or dissimilitude arising from the distinction of the relations. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii,13), " The question of origin is, Who is from Whom? but the question of Equality is, "Of what kind, or how great , is he?" Therefore, paternity is the Father's dignity , as also the Father's essence: since dignity is something absolute, and pertains to the essence. As,therefore, the same Essence , which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation., so the same dignity which, in the Father is paternity ,in the Son is filiation .It is thus true to say that the Son possesses whatever dignity the Father has ; but we cannot argue (Yachrtistian), ----" 'the Father has paternity ,therefore the Son has paternity ,'' for there is a transition from Substance to Relation . For the Father and the Son have the same Essence and dignity, which exist in the Father by the relation of giver, and in the Son by relation of receiver .


Reply 3. In God relation is not a universal whole , although it is predicated of each of the relations ; because all the relations are One in Essence and Being, which is irreconcilable with the idea of universal, the parts of which are distinguished in being . Persons likewise is not a universal term in God .Wherefore all the relations together are not greater than only one ; nor are all the persons something greater than only one ; because the whole perfection of The Divine Nature exists in each Person.""




...... Alan
 
weeee







These are the only scriptures the Latin doctors needed to demonstrate God is one absolute albeit on account of Relation really belongs to God; a plurality in the Supposita of which it is spoken. Hence we must need admit a distinction namely in Godhead. God is His very own Godhead. So to Phontine Yachristian, anti Trinitarians, and Trinitarians alike, The Latin doctor communis refutes modern humanism in adequately (insofar as corporal things represent divine objects), verities of the divine.

""Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in greatness. For He Himself said ( Jn.14:28): The Father is greater than I" ; and the Apostle says ( 1 Cor 15:28): " The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that puts all things under Him.

Objection 2: Further, paternity is part of the Father's dignity. But paternity does not belong to the Son. Therefore the Son does not possess all the Father's dignity; and so He is not equal in greatness to the Father.

Objection 3: Further, wherever there exist a whole and a part, many parts are more than one only, or than fewer parts; as three men are more than two , or than one. But in God a universal whole exists, and a part; for under relation or notion, several notions are included. Therefore, since in the Father there are three notions, while in the Son there are only two, the Son is evidently not equal to the Father.

On the contrary, It is said (Phil. 2:6) : " He thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in greatness . For the greatness of God is nothing but the perfection of His nature. Now it belongs to the very nature of paternity and filiation that the Son by generation should attain to the possession of the perfection of the Nature which is in the Father, in the same way as it is in the Father Himself. But since in men generation is a certain kind of transmutation of one proceeding from potentiality to act, it follows that a man is not equal at first to the father who begets him, but attains to equality by due growth, unless owing to a defect in the principle of generation it should happen otherwise.

From what precedes, it is evident that in God there exist real true paternity and filiation. Nor can we say that the power of generation in the Father was defective, nor that the Son of God arrived at perfection in a successive manner and by change. Therefore we must say that the Son was eternally equal to the Father in greatness. Hence, Hilary says ( De Synod. Van 27):" Remove bodily weakness, remove the beginning of conception, remove pain and all human shortcomings, then every son, by reason of his natural nativity, is the father's equal, because he has a like nature.

Reply 1: These words are to be understood of Christ human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius ," Equal to the Father in His Godhead ; less than the Father in humanity' ; and by Hilary ( De Trin.ix), By the fact of. giving , the Father is greater,but He is not less to Whom the same being is given". and (De Synod); "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety,, that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas' creatures are subject by their created weakness.

Reply 2: Equality is measured in greatness. In God greatness signifies the perfection of nature, and it belongs to the Essence; Thus equality and likeness in God have reference to the essence; nor can there be inequality or dissimilitude arising from the distinction of the relations. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii,13), " The question of origin is, Who is from Whom? but the question of Equality is, "Of what kind, or how great , is he?" Therefore, paternity is the Father's dignity , as also the Father's essence: since dignity is something absolute, and pertains to the essence. As,therefore, the same Essence , which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation., so the same dignity which, in the Father is paternity ,in the Son is filiation .It is thus true to say that the Son possesses whatever dignity the Father has ; but we cannot argue (Yachrtistian), ----" 'the Father has paternity ,therefore the Son has paternity ,'' for there is a transition from Substance to Relation . For the Father and the Son have the same Essence and dignity, which exist in the Father by the relation of giver, and in the Son by relation of receiver .


Reply 3. In God relation is not a universal whole , although it is predicated of each of the relations ; because all the relations are One in Essence and Being, which is irreconcilable with the idea of universal, the parts of which are distinguished in being . Persons likewise is not a universal term in God .Wherefore all the relations together are not greater than only one ; nor are all the persons something greater than only one ; because the whole perfection of The Divine Nature exists in each Person.""




...... Alan
I need Phontine Yachristian, and Yah will increase to refute or negate without perpetual straw that could not belong to the Divine Nature itself.

....... Alan
 
therefore, the same Essence , which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation.

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this true?

There is a distinction between the Essence of the Father and the Essence of the Son. One is paternity whereas the other is filiation.
 
Only the Son knows the Father (Matt 11:27).
Try reading the whole passage . And those the Son chooses to reveal the Father to photoin.

Matthew 11:27
All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
 
Try reading the whole passage . And those the Son chooses to reveal the Father to photoin.

Matthew 11:27
All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

What's your point?
 
By the fact of. giving , the Father is greater,but He is not less to Whom the same being is given

Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this true?

The Father is giving Divine Essence to the Son.

If not...

Who is "giving", what is being "given", and to whom is it "given"?

In other words, please fill in the blanks...

__________ giving __________ to __________.
 
Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this true?

The Father is giving Divine Essence to the Son.

If not...

Who is "giving", what is being "given", and to whom is it "given"?

In other words, please fill in the blanks...

__________ giving __________ to __________.
On the contrary It is written: As The Father hath life/Hypostasis in Himself so hath He given to The Son to hath life/Hypostasis in Himself. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. .

3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his hypostasis, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy
throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.:


You are really grasping at straw. The Father is in The Son and The Son is in The Father by reason of The Son possessing Godhead/ having Divine Life in Himself.

The Greeks say " God has from all eternity generated His Consubstantial Word"

. To expound on this The Latin doctor communis says as regard The Son Eternal Generation/ Immaterial Birth,

" When we speak of His existence as received ,we mean that He Who proceed receives divine existence from Another, but not however as if He were Other from The Divine Nature, For the perfection of the Logos/Word in God contains both The Principle/Father/Paternity and The Term/Son/Filiation of the Principle with whatever pertains to His (Principle from Principle) The Father and The Son Perfection".

Hope that helps.


........ Alan
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this true?

There is a distinction between the Essence of the Father and the Essence of the Son. One is paternity whereas the other is filiation.
The same Essence . So no. There is a distinction in the relation which multiplies the Persons, by reason of their Relative Opposition, as one regard Himself to another,

.......Alan
 
Yep. No trinity.
The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit are related to each other, signified by this name Trinity .And whereby it is, ;by the Relation of Paternity, Filiation. Procession . That is to say" We worship One God absolute in Three "Interrelated "Hypostases/Persons/Subsistencies/Suppositas". One of The Father, another of The Son, and another of The Holy Spirit, Divinely named Trinity.

Now you have to refute or Negate that context, not what you think it is or what you wish it is.

......... Alan
 
The Father The Son and The Holy Spirit are related to each other, signified by this name Trinity .And whereby it is, ;by the Relation of Paternity, Filiation. Procession . That is to say" We worship One God absolute in Three "Interrelated "Hypostases/Persons/Subsistencies/Suppositas". One of The Father, another of The Son, and another of The Holy Spirit, Divinely named Trinity.

Now you have to refute or Negate that context, not what you think it is or what you wish it is.

......... Alan

Yep. Only the Son knows the Father.

No trinity.
 
Just to clarify your Trinitarian view...

Is this true?

There is a distinction between the Essence of the Father and the Essence of the Son. One is paternity whereas the other is filiation.
I answer that in God the abstract is contained in the concrete, and belongs to The Divine Essence , as when we say," Deity and God" "Paternity and Father" " Filiation and Son", etc.

The 4th century Greek Cappadocian father Gregory says," God is an Infinite Sea of Substance ". And at the same time He is Both Substance and Relation." . Hence the vey idea of a distinction between The One Essence of The Divine Persons imports habitude, inequality and unequal proportions, all of which conflicts with The Divine Self Subsistence/ The Divine Self Sovereignty. And thus there would be no Unity and Equality in God, nor The Express Image/ The Exact Imprint/ The Form of God ,or neither The only Begotten Son/God The Word made passable ,being found as man ,after a fashion ,to become obedient unto death to the glory of God The Father,

It follows there can be no distinction of Essence by reason of the Unity of Nature. Aquinas says" The only distinction between The Father, and The Son is that , The Father is The Father, and The Son is The Son", He actually says,"

"The only distinction between The Father and The Son is that The Father is denominated by Fatherhood, ie the notion or Personal property of Paternity, and The Son is denominated by Sonship, ie the notion or Personal property of Filiation".

Hope that helps

........ Alan
 
Yep. No trinity.
Just because you keep repeating No Trinity like a broken record doesn't make it any less a profession of Faith on the Divine Economy. Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.


I notice you can't remotely refute or Negate not one sentence in any of my post. Quite frankly I have no idea what point you intend to make by erroneously asserting. no Trinity.


....... Alan
 
On the contrary It is written: As The Father hath life/Hypostasis in Himself so hath He given to The Son to hath life/Hypostasis in Himself.

You have said “Godhead” refers to “life” whereas “God” refers to “the living thing”.

In your statement above, does “life” refer to “Godhead”?

In other words, does your statement above mean...

As The Father hath Godhead/Hypostasis in Himself so hath He given to The Son to hath Godhead/Hypostasis in Himself.

If not...

What is the difference between “life” in your statement above and “life” that is “Godhead”?
 
The same Essence .

But when you say...
“The same Essence, which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation.”

“Which” would refer to “Essence” rather than “Relation of Essence”.

In other words, your statement as written means...
Although it is the same Essence, the Essence in the Father is paternity, whereas the Essence in the Son is filiation.

Correct?

(That statement is making a distinction in “Essence”.)

Your statement as written would NOT mean...
It is the same Essence, but the Relation of Essence in the Father is paternity, whereas the Relation of Essence in the Son is filiation.

(That statement is making a distinction in “Relation of Essence”.)

If that is what you meant, then that is what you should have said.
 
Last edited:
Just because you keep repeating No Trinity like a broken record doesn't make it any less a profession of Faith on the Divine Economy. Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.


I notice you can't remotely refute or Negate not one sentence in any of my post. Quite frankly I have no idea what point you intend to make by erroneously asserting. no Trinity.


....... Alan

Why would I argue with you when you agreed with me? You said "Of course only The Son knows The Father for He is called The Word of God".

Matt 11:27 is a very great verse.

No trinity.
 
But when you say...
“The same Essence, which in the Father is paternity, in the Son is filiation.”

“Which” would refer to “Essence” rather than “Relation of Essence”.

In other words, your statement as written means...
Although it is the same Essence, the Essence in the Father is paternity, whereas the Essence in the Son is filiation.

Correct?

(That statement is making a distinction in “Essence”.)

Your statement as written would NOT mean...
It is the same Essence, but the Relation of Essence in the Father is paternity, whereas the Relation of Essence in the Son is filiation.

(That statement is making a distinction in “Relation of Essence”.)

If that is what you meant, then that is what you should have said.
Essence=Divine NATURE.
Paternity, Filiation refers to PERSONS.
 
Back
Top